B C BALACHANDRAN Vs. PARTHASARATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been preferred by the insured person and the owner of the vehicle P.L.A. 3867 against the common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunnal (IV Additional Sub Judge), Madurai, in M.C.OPs. 71 and 28 of 1980. On 24/01/1988 the appellant in C.M.A. No. 875 of 1992 was travelling in the car KLA 3887 belonging to the appellant in C.M.A. No. 876 of 1992 from Kodai Road to Madurai and at that time, an accident took place between that vehicle and another tourist taxi bearing registration number TNA 6116 driven by one Parthasarathy and owned by Alli and insured with National Insurance Company. In that accident the appellant in C.M.A. 875 of 1992 sustained injuries and the vechile belonging to the appellant in CMA 875 of 1992 suffered damage. According to the case of the appellant in these appeals, their accident was the outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the toursit taxi TNA 6116 by its driver and that in respect of the injuries sustained by the appellant in C.M.A. No. 875 of 1992 and the damage to the car belonging to the appellant in C.M.A. No. 876 of 1992, compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each should be awarded. The claim so made was registered on the ground that the accident did not take place as a result of the rash and negligent driving of TNA 6116 and that the compensation claimed was also excessive. The sustaining of damage by the vehcile KLA 3887 was also denied. The insurer of the vehcile TNA 6116 also put forward the plea that at the time of the accident the driver was not duly licensed and therefore, no liability could be fastened on it for payment of compensation. Since both the claims arose out of the same accident, the claim petitions were disposed of on common evidence under a common award. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident which took place on 24/1/1988 was only on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tourist taxi. TNA 6116 by its driver, considering the claim of the appellant in C.M.A. 875 of 1992 for payment of compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 22,200/- together with interest at 12% from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment. In regard to the claim of the appellant in C.M.A. No. 876 of 1992 for recovery of the expenses to set right the damages to the vehicle KLA 3887, the Tribunal determined that amount at Rs. 32,000/- and directed payment thereof together with interest at 12% from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment. In these appeals, the appellants have prayed that the disallowed portion of the compensation should also be awarded to them.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant in C.M.A. 876 of 1992 first contended that the vehicle KLA 3887 had sustained extensive damage and the award of the Tribunal is that it made avaialble only a sum of Rs. 32,000/- towards repair charges; requires to be modified and higher amount awarded on the basis of the available materials. The argument, however, cannot be accepted. The appellant in C.M.A. 875 of 1992 is one other than the son of the appellant in C.M.A. 876 of 1992 and he has given evidence as P.W. 1. In the course of his evidence, he had stated that the car KLA 3887 had sustained extensive damage. From Ex. P. 5 it is seen that the front portion of the car KLA 3887 had been damaged. The nature and the extent of damage to that vehicle are also brought out clearly in the photographs marked as Exs. P. 8 to P. 12. Exs. P. 13 to P. 24 establish that the damaged vehicle was examined by Madurai Ambika Motor Works and a sum of Rs. 32,327.58 (sic) had also been incurred. No contra evidence had been placed before the Tribunal to discredit either Ex. P. 5 or Ex. P. 8 to P. 12 or even Exs. P. 13 to P. 21. Though normally the appellant in C.M.A. 876 of 1992 would be entitled to recover the entire amount of Rs. 33,597-58. It is seen that the Tribunal had taken into account the value of the replaced parts also and had made a notional deduction of Rs. 1,597-58 towards the same and had arrived at the compensation of Rs. 32,000/-. In so doing the Tribunal cannot be stated to have committed any error. The replaced parts, though they will not be used as such, could at least be regarded as scrap and a value put thereon and that had been done by the Tribunal. It is also significant that no evidence was placed before the Court to show that there is any scope for further enhancement in the amount awardable with reference to the damage sustained by the vehicles KLA 3887. Under these circumstnaces, the Tribunal was justified in awarding to the appellant in C.M.A. 876 of 1992 compensation in a sum of Rs. 32,000/-.

(3.) LASTLY, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the insurer of the vehicle TNA 6116 should have been made liable for payment of compensation the appellants in those appeals. However, according to learned counsel for the Insurance Company, on the date of the accident viz. 24/1/1982, the driver of the vehicle TNA 6116 did not have a valid driving licence for the purpose of driving a tourist taxi and under the terms and conditions of the policy, there had been a violation of one of its terms and therefore, no liability for payment of compensation could be fastened on the Insurance Company.